Re: [perl #57320] touch /tmp/t && make test => fails t/perl/Parrot_IO.t ?

# from Will Coleda # on Monday 28 July 2008 07:31: >I presume Eric noticed this as he was working on his patch to enable a >parallel make test; Now that his patch is applied, fixing these tests >should have a higher priority; If two tests that are trying to >create/use the same directory run at th

Re: unified languages-test

# from Will Coleda # on Monday 18 August 2008 12:11: >> as far as i'm aware, with planet.parrotcode, the administrator picks >> the feeds that are aggregated. >> ~jerry > >Yes, I assumed you wanted server side aggregation. > >What you're suggesting here sounds just like "subscribe to as many >feed

Re: enterprise parrot

# from jerry gay # on Tuesday 05 August 2008 14:13: >>On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote: >> Which reminds me: chromatic, what was your reasoning for major >> releases being every three months, instead of four or six? >> >> I agree we don't want to go much beyond six months f

Re: [perl #57358] Enable parallel testing

# from Moritz Lenz # on Monday 28 July 2008 13:02: >With enough RAM everything is fair game ;-) >I ran it with $n == 20, and identified this list of files: Yes. My reading of Parrot::Configure suggests that there's no tempdir involved, which would need to be done per-process. The alternative i

Re: [perl #57358] Enable parallel testing

# from Moritz Lenz # on Monday 28 July 2008 09:52: >> That's not -just- with the patch, though, is it? I presume you've >> set TEST_JOBS to be something other than '1' ... > >I've set it to 2, and obeserve the errors below. With serial testing I >get a PASS (r29828). Yes. TEST_JOBS=1 doesn't cha

Re: [perl #57320] touch /tmp/t && make test => fails t/perl/Parrot_IO.t ?

# from James Keenan via RT # on Sunday 27 July 2008 18:45: >> It appears that this test assumes (multiple times perhaps?) that it >> may make named files in /tmp/. > >Are you saying that making named files in /tmp (or any other temporary >directory) is bad or something to be avoided?  If so, what

Re: This week on parrot?

# from Andy Lester # on Monday 05 May 2008: >But do those lurkers actually exist? I exist (or at least, I operate under the assumption that I exist.) >that the people who would be interested in a summary are already on   >the list. Indeed I am on the list. But, I usually don't read anything wi

Re: This week on parrot?

# from Andy Lester # on Monday 05 May 2008: >> This presupposes that the summaries are a good thing: anyone have >> any feedback on this point? > >Just wondering who the audience would be. Lurkers (potential contributors.) Posting it on use.perl.org (and/or various other feed sources) would rea

Re: Google Summer of Code 2008 Call for Proposals

rting to appear in #parrot and I'm just not noticing it? Did your local perl mongers list get my "call for proposals" mail? http://use.perl.org/~Eric+Wilhelm/journal/35953 Do *you* know any students who would be good candidates? Am I just being impatient? I'm curious wh

summer of parrot - ideas and mentors wanted

# from chromatic # on Saturday 01 March 2008 17:19: >Will Coleda and Dave Rolsky are currently performing similar features > for Parrot; either of them might be a good first choice. > >If neither can do it, I will. Excellent, thanks. Parrot seems to be nicely supplied with soc managers now! Je

Re: summer of code mentor applications starting (and ending) next week

# from Nicholas Clark # on Friday 29 February 2008 06:58: >There is no such thing as a p5p admin*. No, it would need to be somebody on behalf of TPF, as google needs somewhere to send the mentorship check. Alternatively, a company or individual attached to a sufficiently large perl-based proje

Re: [perl #38262] [CAGE] get external Perl5 modules out of the parrot repo

# from James Keenan via RT # on Wednesday 27 February 2008 09:40: >The output of Test::Builder changed at 0.64_01, which falls in between >the 0.60 we had in the distro and the 0.72 which most (but not all) of >our developers are likely to be using now. >... >Two possible solutions:  Either elimin

Re: the future of testing

# from Rafael Garcia-Suarez # on Wednesday 09 January 2008 05:36: >Allison Randal wrote in perl.perl6.internals : >> In the Python test suite, there's a single global location to >> declare a list of test files that are expected to be skipped on a >> particular platform. This has a much cleaner fe

Re: [perl #45601] [unified_testing] Plans and notes for the unified testing branch

# from Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT # on Tuesday 27 November 2007 16:22: >after the release of Test::Harness 3.03 I'm wondering about the status >of the 'unified_testing' branch. Test::Harness::Straps doesn't exist in the new Test::Harness, so trunk would need to catchup with that issue regardles

Re: [perl #45601] [unified_testing] Plans and notes for the unified testing branch

# from James Keenan via RT # on Friday 21 September 2007 13:44: >On Thu Sep 20 13:03:31 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>http://perlsix.org/svn/parrot/view/branches/unified_testing/BRANCH_TODO >>... >> 5) Add processing of the output of Configure --test. > >When I began working on writing tests fo

Re: Test::Harness 2.99_02 vs. Parrot

# from Andy Armstrong # on Monday 10 September 2007 11:13 am: >On 10 Sep 2007, at 19:12, Andy Armstrong wrote: >> What are the steps a parrot-n00b would take to be able to reproduce >> your results? svn co https://svn.perl.org/parrot/trunk parrot perl Configure.pl make make test If your

Re: [perl #45153] better TAP::Harness support

# from Parrot via RT # on Tuesday 04 September 2007 01:30 am: >With TAP::Parser, the attached patch and Parrot/TAP/Harness.pm in the >current directory[1], the tests can be run as: > >  runtests --harness Parrot::TAP::Harness $(perl t/harness --files) The runtests code has been refactored into Ap

Re: TAP::Harness

# from Gabor Szabo # on Saturday 01 September 2007 01:35 am: >Regarding Parrot, I think there was some discussion of moving it to > use TAP::Harness and to use Smolder to collect the TAP based results. Indeed. We determined that the main task is refactoring all of the t/harness files. It looks

Re: [perl #44213] docs/faq.pod - fix L pod abuse

# from Will Coleda via RT # on Friday 03 August 2007 01:40 pm: >Seems like a pretty straightforward patch, but isn't the L<> syntax >used currently proper? The L<> doesn't support "named" http:// links. from perlpod: ' L Links to an absolute URL. For example, L. But not

Re: t/codingstd/perlcritic.t needs to be optional

# from Andy Lester # on Wednesday 27 June 2007 10:09 pm: >Modified since when? Create a .critictest file when it succeeds and use that timestamp? # from chromatic # on Wednesday 27 June 2007 11:10 pm: >> What if we have the Perl::Critic checks as Subversion commit hooks? >> Could email p6i with

Re: [perl #43081] [p6] Get p6 tests from pugs.

# from Paul Cochrane # on Thursday 31 May 2007 01:42 pm: > It is possible to get anonymous svn access to the pugs >source, but svn won't allow you to check out source from a different >repository into another repository's path Maybe I'm missing something, but what I've done in similar situations